Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas
August 16, 1983
xney General
475.2501 I 9101874.1367 copier eme Court Bulldmg an. TX. 78711- Box 12546 :5121475~0266 [2546] Dallas, Texas Dallas County Government Center Criminal District Attorney Honorable Henry Wade 75202 opinion No. JM. 62 Re: Unauthorized bond forfeiture connec’tion with bail
Dear Mr. Wade:
’ Main St.. suite as. TX. ‘75201.4709 742.8944
You ask whether bail bondsmen are engaging law in the following fact situations: 1. A lay person other than the proprietor of a
: Alberta Ave.. SUlW 160 sole proprietbrship bonding company Is making aso. TX. 799052793 533.3464 court appearances without counsel and is making, ,- signing, and filing Motions for a New Trial and making requests fo; .&tension and remittance. 3 Da.~ . Ave.. Suite 202 ISlO”, TX. 77002-6966 2. A lay person ~who Is a partner in a ‘650-0666 ‘,
partnership bonding company is making court appearances without counsel in bond forfeiture Broadway. Suite 312 hearings is making, signing, and filing t0ch. TX. 79401.3479 Motions for a New Trial and making requests for ~747+,238 extension and remittance.
8 N. Tenth. Suite B 3. The lay proprietor of a sole proprietorship *h, TX. 76501-1665 bonding company is making appearances y682-4547 without counsel under a power of attorney as the
agent a corporate insurer surety in bond ? MaIn Plaza. Suite 4W forfeiture hearings and such is making $ Antonio. TX. 762052797 requests for extensions remittance. h-419, proprietor must reimburse or must pay any bond t on which corporate surety
liable. , In light of current case law and existing regulatory statutes, we in each of the above lay persons are engaged law. While each of bondsmen could represent themselves and their own interests the nature their activities as outlined above the rendering legal advice to and the representation
and entities Specifically, they are violating (~~-62)
a settled legal principle which requires corporations and partnerships to be represented of law is affected with a public interest and the
state has a right and duty to regulate and control its practice so the public is properly served and protected. Palmer v. Unauthorized Practice Committee of the State Bar of Texas, 438 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1969. no writ). See also Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D. TX 1975). aff’d 542 F.2d 56 (5th Cir. 1976).
Article 430(a) of the Texas Penal Code previously defined specific terms the activities constituting the unauthorized practice of This article, however, has been repealed the Texas Legislature. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, I1 at 883. Article 320a-1, V.T.C.S., of the State Ear Act, now controls determinations of whether or not an activity
Article 320a-1 establishes the State Bar of Texas as a regulatory agency of Texas’ state government and has endowed the State Bar with disciplinary and rulemaking powers governing the practice law in Texas. The article states, in pertinent part, the following:
Sec. 19(a). For purposes this Act, embraces pleadings and other papers
special and the management of actions in courts as well as services out of including or of any service requiring skill or knowledge. . . This definition is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branch of the power and authority both under this Act and the adjudicated to determine whether
other services and acts not enumerated in this Act
may constitute of law. 019(a). All act.6 which an “unauthorized law” are not enumerated the statute. Apparently the State Bar of Texas and the state’s judicial branch must apply the statute on a case-by-case basis vith regard to the attendant circumstances. See Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas, Twenty-first Congressional District v. Dean, 190 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. APP. - Austin 1945, no writ).
While the State Bar Act requires any who wants t? law first to obtain a license, neither the State Bar nor th- state judiciary has promulgated rules which specifically define those *3 Honorable Henry Wade - Page 3 See Grievance Committee, State
acts constituting Bar of Texas, Twenty-first CongressfonT District v. Coryell.
S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Civ. ADD. - Austin 1945. writ ref'd w.o.m.1: V.T.C.S. art. 320a-1: Case law:'however. has in- some Dart orovided-standards .
by which legal conduct -may be judged.
A determination of whether or not an individual has engaged in an unlicensed, legal can be determined by an examination the services and their relationship to
pqblic interest. See Grievance Committee v. Coryell, supra; Grievance Committee v. Dean,--. law includes of pleadings and other papers of special proceedings,
the management of such actions
behalf in courts. Davies v. Unauthorized Practice Committee of the State Bar of Texas, 431 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); 619a~. The practice law is not confined to conducted in court; it includes of conclusions which require legal skill. Hughes
p. Fort Worth National Bank, 164 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Tex:Civ. App.
)rt Worth' 1942, writ ref'd). Whether compensation is paid to an Lndividual performing services irrelevant. Grievance Committee v.
Coryell, supra, at 130-131. A layman law when that individual. by words or conduct, renders advice or services to others. Quarles v. State Bar of Texas,
316 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston 1958, no writ), cert.
denied, 368 U.S. 986 (1962).
As previously stated, have privilege themselves they not in legal matters; are simply
permitted to appear of another or entity.
Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44. 45 (D.C. Cir. 1953). cert. denied, Corporations and partnerships, therefore, must 347 U.S. 944 (1954).
be represented attorneys. They may not be represented
officers and/or agents of the partnership or corporation -- regardless of the individual's relationship to or position 'in the Company -- if Inc. v. those persons are not licensed Engine Supply and Machine Service, 437 S.W.2d 43. 45 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1969, no writ); Flora Construction Company v.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962).
cert. denied, 373 U.S. 919 (1963).
Turning to the three in your request, we each instance bondsmen are engaging ,-authorized law. The first shows a lay person
,t only representing the bonding company for which he or she works *ut also the company's clients' interest. that this action
violates article 320a-1, V.T.C.S.. and the above referenced standards established by case
In the second a lay person is seeking to represent a partnership. Partnerships must be represented Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine Services, supra. The
bondsman, therefore, in an unauthorized final fact outline shows a a corporation and by filing motions the corporation's behalf. We believe that these actions constitute an unauthorized law. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply and Machine Service. supra. The agreement between lay person and the client company which requires the lay person to reimburse the client for bond for which client liable is irrelevant to a determination of whether an unauthorized law has occurred. * Grievance Committee v. Coryell. supra at 130.
SUMMARY your letter ? law because lay persons
render legal advice and represent
entities
JIM
Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Laura Martin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Laura Martin
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton